Comment by _-david-_
4 years ago
She was drummed out of town because she was supporting DEI and CRT, not because she was black.
Did you read the article?
"This is not about the color of her skin. It’s what she’s going to bring into our district and what she’s going to teach our children"
Your statement suggests that you did not actually read the article.
She was drummed out of town because white radical Republicans made up positions that the educator in question did not hold and had never hold (that you can pretend to talk about CRT with respect to primary or secondary school is indicative that you have bought into the propaganda; it is a post-graduate law school concept, unless you’re a radical republican hell bent on fighting anything that does anything other than support a white supremacist distortion of history).
The reality is that the moment someone in Georgia says "this is not about the colour of her skin", it’s about the colour of her skin. Everything about what she was going to "bring into" the district was fabricated out of whole cloth and had nothing to do with either (a) anything the educator in question had said or (b) anything the educator in question had been hired for.
"The reality is that the moment someone in Georgia says "this is not about the colour of her skin", it’s about the colour of her skin."
Ironically, what you wrote is a very classical example of prejudice.
No, what I wrote is experience. Just because I don’t give you a detailed example of the history where I know what I wrote to be true does not make it less experiential.
White racism in Georgia is deep and has decades of experience in cloaking itself in plausible deniability to confuse the weak-minded.
Or have you never heard of Lee Atwater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater)?
5 replies →
>She was drummed out of town because white radical Republicans made up positions that the educator in question did not hold and had never hold
Assuming that is true, that may or may not have to do with race. Please provide proof race had anything to do with this.
>that you can pretend to talk about CRT with respect to primary or secondary school is indicative that you have bought into the propaganda; it is a post-graduate law school concept, unless you’re a radical republican hell bent on fighting anything that does anything other than support a white supremacist distortion of history).
CRT is clearly being used as a generic term and not a college level idea. Maybe we should have two separate terms, but similar concepts are absolutely being taught.
>The reality is that the moment someone in Georgia says "this is not about the colour of her skin", it’s about the colour of her skin.
You are clearly bias and assume the worst in people you disagree with.
You are doing the very thing you accuse these Georgians of doing.
>Everything about what she was going to "bring into" the district was fabricated out of whole cloth and had nothing to do with either (a) anything the educator in question had said or (b) anything the educator in question had been hired for.
Maybe, but seeing how white people pushing this get yelled at and kicked out as well, assuming this has anything to do with race is nothing more than a theory.
If we ever want to solve racial tension, we need to stop calling everybody a racist when they disagree on policies.
If America ever wants to solve racial tension, it needs to stop pretending that racial problems are fixed. They’re not, and all the data that matters says that very clearly (compare health outcomes, relative poverty, educational outcomes, incarceration rates, etc. across racial groups in America, and Black Americans are consistently in the worst groups for each of those—this is indicative of systemic problems that the racists in power don’t want addressed).
> CRT is clearly being used as a generic term and not a college level idea. Maybe we should have two separate terms, but similar concepts are absolutely being taught.
This is utter bullshit on every level, and you should be ashamed of yourself for such intellectual dishonesty.
There are two different CRTs. There is the real thing (a graduate level law concept) and then there is whatever the Fox News Outrage Machine has created to argue against. What are they arguing against? Pretty much anything that indicates that America had a dependency on slave labour ("involuntary relocation", anyone?). Pretty much anything that says that the Civil War was about keeping that slave labour. Pretty much anything that says that there was and continues to be a white supremacy problem in America to the detriment of all groups in America (see the recent decision in Wisconsin to drop a book about order 9066, Japanese-American internment, and Korematsu).
Please, start thinking for yourself and stop repeating Fox News Outrage.
7 replies →
This amounts to "so what if the people the KKK lynched just so happened to be black? this doesn't prove anything!"
1 reply →